remote sensing

Article
Novel UAV Flight Designs for Accuracy Optimization of
Structure from Motion Data Products
Marlin M. Mueller 1, * , Steffen Dietenberger 1 , Maximilian Nestler 1 , Sören Hese 2 , Jonas Ziemer 2 ,
Felix Bachmann 1,2 , Julian Leiber 1 , Clémence Dubois 1,2 and Christian Thiel 1

1 Institute of Data Science, German Aerospace Center, Maelzerstraße 3-5, 07745 Jena, Germany
2 Department for Earth Observation, Friedrich Schiller University, Leutragraben 1, 07743 Jena, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Leveraging low-cost drone technology, specifically the DJI Mini 2, this study presents
an innovative method for creating accurate, high-resolution digital surface models (DSMs) to en-
hance topographic mapping with off-the-shelf components. Our research, conducted near Jena,
Germany, introduces two novel flight designs, the “spiral” and “loop” flight designs, devised to
mitigate common challenges in structure from motion workflows, such as systematic doming and
bowling effects. The analysis, based on height difference products with a lidar-based reference, and
curvature estimates, revealed that “loop” and “spiral” flight patterns were successful in substantially
reducing these systematic errors. It was observed that the novel flight designs resulted in DSMs
with lower curvature values compared to the simple nadir or oblique flight patterns, indicating a
significant reduction in distortions. The results imply that the adoption of novel flight designs can
lead to substantial improvements in DSM quality, while facilitating shorter flight times and lower
computational needs. This work underscores the potential of consumer-grade unoccupied aerial
vehicle hardware for scientific applications, especially in remote sensing tasks.

Keywords: unoccupied aerial vehicle (UAV); photogrammetry; structure from motion (SfM); accuracy;
flight design; oblique viewing; POI; nadir; distortion correction; digital surface model (DSM)
Citation: Mueller, M.M.;
Dietenberger, S.; Nestler, M.; Hese, S.;
Ziemer, J.; Bachmann, F.; Leiber, J.;
Dubois, C.; Thiel, C. Novel UAV 1. Introduction
Flight Designs for Accuracy
Unoccupied aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have gained increasing
Optimization of Structure from
public attention in recent years. They are omnipresent in numerous segments of work,
Motion Data Products. Remote Sens.
science, and society and offer the possibility of exploring the Earth’s surface from perspec-
2023, 15, 4308. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs15174308
tives that were previously difficult to reach. For this reason, the demand and usage of
cost-effective, consumer-grade UAV hardware has grown significantly [1]. UAVs allow for
Academic Editor: Biswajeet Pradhan the collection of Earth observation data at very high spatial (in the millimeter to centimeter
Received: 22 July 2023
range) and temporal scales while maintaining low cost and user-friendly application [2,3].
Revised: 16 August 2023 Greater flexibility and versatility in survey scales and imaging schemes, relative to airborne
Accepted: 29 August 2023 methods, are afforded by recent advances in UAV technology [3]. The incorporation of
Published: 31 August 2023 high-precision real-time kinematic (RTK) or post-processing kinematic (PPK) global navi-
gation satellite systems (GNSSs) allows for the precise detection of spatial processes and
patterns on the Earth’s surface, even in very small UAV systems. Concurrent technological
progression in the sensor field has expanded from the historically ubiquitous RGB sensors
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. to include a wide range of passive sensors operating across different wavelength ranges.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. These now encompass near-infrared (NIR) and short-wave infrared (SWIR) sensors, as
This article is an open access article well as hyperspectral sensors [3]. In addition, it is now possible to equip UAVs with active
distributed under the terms and
sensors, such as light detection and ranging (lidar) or radio detection and ranging (radar)
conditions of the Creative Commons
sensors [2], which has been instrumental in their growing adoption for Earth exploration
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
research. This surge has been further propelled by a substantial decrease in UAV costs, the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
advent of new imaging sensors, and the emergence of more sophisticated, user-friendly
4.0/).

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174308 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 2 of 26

tools for processing UAV data. These catalysts have collectively broadened the scope of
UAV applications across various industries [3,4]. For this reason, UAVs are already in
widespread use in agriculture [5–8], forestry [9–14], archaeology [15,16], urban and infras-
tructure monitoring [16,17] as well as disaster management [18] and many more fields of
society and science [3].
While there are limitations in the use of UAVs, such as the limited range and mission
duration compared to airborne remote sensing or the dependence on specific meteorological
conditions [3], the structure from motion (SfM) processing workflow still remains one of the
biggest challenges in utilizing UAV data acquisitions. In datasets generated using low-cost
UAVs that lack metric camera systems, real-time kinematic (RTK) capabilities, and the
provision for ground control points (GCPs)—systems and features primarily utilized within
highly specialized domains and often priced in the upper tens of thousands—considerable
uncertainties can be introduced. One of the most common errors introduced due to hard-
ware limitations is the height deformation of the processed three-dimensional datasets
such as digital surface models (DSMs). These errors persist particularly in scenarios em-
ploying low-cost drone solutions that lack RTK-GNSS, or when the in situ collection of
GCPs is impracticable. Though the utilization of RTK-GNSS, GCPs, and metric cameras
can substantially mitigate these effects, it often remains unfeasible due to constraints of
time or budget [19–22]. In addition, these mitigation tactics might also not be practi-
cable due to difficult terrain or the absence of necessary infrastructure in very remote
places. In order to reduce systematic vertical deformations of DSMs, the acquisition of
oblique images [21,23–25] and the development and application of novel flight designs is
recommended [4].

1.1. Structure from Motion Workflow

In UAV-based photogrammetry, the most common method for data processing is SfM,
which is based on stereoscopic principles using overlapping images to estimate camera
motion and allows the creation of a 3D representation of an object or scene. The SfM
process involves detecting salient features in the images, computing the geometry of the
images, and then optimizing the overall model, while the internal geometry, position, and
orientation of the camera can be determined a priori from the image information [26]. The
data basis for the SfM method is a series of highly overlapping 2D images taken by a
moving sensor [26]. Parallax differences occur between these images, which are exploited
by the SfM multi-view-stereo-matching (SfM-MVS or simply SfM) algorithms [27]. The
SfM approach first looks for image features (keypoints) present in multiple images based
on spatial extrema using the most widespread SIFT algorithm (scale-invariant feature trans-
form) [28]. While SIFT is a widely used method for identifying and matching key points
in images, alternative techniques are being developed that can outperform SIFT in certain
situations [29]. In order to be most useful for the SfM process, key objects should be selected
with a broad baseline (distance between two consecutive images)—correspondingly from
different perspectives [30].
After the keypoints have been selected, the corresponding points between the images
are estimated. This process depends on the image texture and the overlap of the images [31].
Subsequently, bundle adjustment algorithms that allow simultaneous estimation of the 3D
geometry of a scene, the different camera positions (extrinsic calibration) and the intrinsic
camera parameters (intrinsic calibration) are applied [30,32]. Based on this information, as
well as derived scaling and rotational factors, a sparse and georeferenced point cloud is
generated. The photogrammetric network typically manifests localized strains, which can
be mitigated through the application of a global bundle adjustment, refining visual recon-
structions to yield collectively optimized structure and viewing parameter estimates [33].
In the final step, multi-view stereo matching, a fully reconstructed, three-dimensional
scene geometry is calculated from a collection of images with known intrinsic and extrinsic
camera parameters [34]. In achieving this, the MVS algorithm allows for densification of
the sparse point cloud [34,35]. This can be implemented using different MVS algorithms,
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 3 of 26

which involves matching salient features, such as edges between different images. Patches
with additional texture information are formed based on these matches and are finally
filtered based on depth images in a last step to generate a georeferenced dense point cloud,
which is the basis for computing various final data products, such as 3D models, digital
surface models, or orthomosaics.

1.2. Sources of Errors in the Creation of SfM-Based Digital Surface Models

There are several factors that can affect the 3D reconstruction and, thus, the quality of
digital surface models (DSM). These include the scale of the scene, the distance between
the sensor and the surface, the image resolution, illumination conditions, and the accuracy
and distribution of homologous pixels and GCPs, but most importantly the camera cali-
bration, image acquisition geometry, surface texture, and flight patterns [4,35,36]. Thus,
SfM-based models can exhibit height (Z-offset), rotation (Y- and Z-rotations), as well as
scaling errors. Camera calibration constitutes a critical methodology, central to the creation
of geometrically qualitative DSMs [35]. Intrinsic camera parameter misestimations within
the SfM workflow, particularly the radial distortion parameters, can induce deformations
in the resultant image data [37–40]. Such inaccuracies may emanate from the scarcity of
distinctive geometric features in the scene, crucial for effective camera self-calibration [41].
Consequently, this faulty self-calibration can lead to pronounced systematic vertical distor-
tions [21,41].
Image acquisition geometry also plays a large role in preventing doming effects. The
doming effect is a large-scale, systematic deformation of the surface reconstructed by SfM-
MVS algorithms. In this case, this deformation affects the entire DSM, mainly affecting the
vertical dimension [42,43]. The terms “doming” and “bowling” refer to the appearance
of these deformations (see Figure 1). If convex deformations exist, they are referred to as
doming, while concave deformations are referred to as bowling [42]. A poor image network
can lead to unreliable camera calibration, which can produce doming effects [37]. Several
parameters are important for the geometry of the image network: image overlap, oblique
image capture, convergence, and the number of images captured [35]. A high degree
of image overlap is essential to detect homologous points between different images [35].
Accordingly, a high image overlap value can reduce doming error [21]. The number of
images is equally important in reducing DSM errors. An increase in the number of images
does not necessarily result in a linear increase in accuracy and the final number of images
must be carefully considered [35]. Importantly, the convergence of flight patterns can
improve the accuracy of DSMs [35,42,44]. In this context, the angle of convergence is crucial.
Up to a certain point, the larger the angle of convergence, the better the photogrammetric
network, which in turn increases the accuracy. However, if the convergence angle is too
high, it can have the opposite effect and degrade the quality of the DSM [35]. The flight
altitude of the UAV has likewise a crucial influence on the Z-accuracy [31]. Accordingly,
vertical accuracy decreases proportionally to flight altitude [20,31].
The quality of the DSMs is substantially influenced by the texture and contrast of
the area of interest. The detection of a sufficient quantity of homologous pixels between
images, each characterized by adequate contrast and texture, emerges as a paramount
consideration [35]. A paucity of such pixels is frequently attributed to poorly textured
surfaces with reduced contrast. Furthermore, it warrants mention that “doming effects”
become more pronounced when areas with low relief energy, such as linear topographies,
are observed and traversed using nadir flight patterns. This is due to the lack of geometric
features inherent in such topographies, which hinders the self-calibration of the camera
model [41]. Thus, in areas with more prominent relief and surface texture, the occurrence
of vertical distortions could be weaker [4].
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 4 of 26

Figure 1. Examples of 3D model systematic deformations (bowling and doming) investigated in

this study.

1.3. State of the Art of Minimizing Systematic Elevation Errors

In the absence of metric cameras, which are specifically designed to mitigate intrinsic
errors, distortions stemming from the camera lens are an inevitability, particularly with the
ubiquity of consumer-grade cameras on consumer-grade UAVs. Figure 1 illustrates two
distinct types of distortion effects: doming and bowling. Such deformations are attributable
to variations in lens construction and aberration effects, which subsequently distort the
photographic output. Carbonneau and Dietrich [42] emphasize that this primarily impinges
upon small-format and compact cameras, akin to those typically deployed in UAVs. If
multiple images are captured through lenses that exhibit the described distortions and
are combined in the SfM-MVS workflow, this can lead to the aforementioned doming
effects. Accordingly, bowling and doming effects are predominantly based on the incorrect
estimation of lens models. The magnitude of the bowling or doming increases with the
degree of misestimation of the lens distortion [44], which can assume dimensions in the
range of multiple meters and can usually be easily detected. Significant deformations
can also occur in the decimeter range, which are more difficult to spot. Comparisons
with a more accurate DEM dataset (reference dataset) are, therefore, advisable. An easy
optimization approach can involve calibrating the camera model using a chessboard pattern,
allowing for the independent estimation of camera parameters separate from the actual
field-based image acquisitions. In addition, deformations of the dataset can be quantified
by the use of GCPs [4]. An overview of the current related literature on this topic is given
in Table 1.
In addition to lens distortions, other factors that promote the doming effect are also
present. These include the exclusive use of nadir imagery especially over flat terrain,
the acquisition of image data using parallel flight patterns which lead to the erroneous
estimation of intrinsic camera parameters and subsequent low-accuracy DSMs [20,24,41,45].
Other measures to reduce deformations include the use of a reliable camera model and the
use of the relationship between radial distortion parameters and dome or bowl size [21].
In addition, a ground detection method was published to reduce the doming effect [38].
As described in the previous sections, the accuracy of DSMs and, thus, the occurrence of
systematic vertical doming effects depends on several factors. The literature sees great
potential in minimizing the doming effects with the additional acquisition of oblique images
as well as in the design of novel flight patterns, such as point of interest (POI) flight patterns
(for a detailed description, see Section 2.2).

1.3.1. Oblique View Imaging

All examined publications noted an increase in the Z-accuracy with the use of oblique
imaging in their studies (see Table 1). The degree of improvement differed. While Vacca
et al. [46] noted a 50–90% increase in vertical accuracy, a reduction in the doming effect of
up to two orders of magnitude was measured by James and Robson [37]. Sanz-Ablanedo
et al. [4] investigated the mean dome and bowl sizes of different flight patterns. They found
that the use of oblique imagery resulted in significantly lower systematic altitude distortions
compared to nadir flight patterns. The authors determined the mean convexity size of each
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 5 of 26

DSM [42]. Here, the value of the nadir flight patterns (0.813 m) significantly exceeded that
of the oblique imagery (0.149 m) and POI imagery (0.101 m). These findings indicate that
the use of specific flight patterns, such as POI or oblique imagery, can increase Z-accuracies.
The use of alternative flight designs, such as POI and oblique imagery produce a higher
number of link points between imagery as well as a larger number of camera viewpoints.
Thus, the photogrammetric network is strengthened, leading to a reduction in doming
error [4].

Table 1. Overview of relevant scientific publications on the additional and exclusive use of oblique
images to increase Z-accuracy. Additionally, different camera angles, heights, and image overlaps
are examined.

Ref. Hardware Gimbal Altitude Site Area Overlap (%) Oblique Effect
Doming sizes:
nadir: 0.813 m,
DJI Phantom Nadir, oblique, oblique: 0.149 m,
[4] 35–65 m Urban, flat 2.1 ha 65/45
4 Pro (3×) POI POI: 0.101 m,
nadir + ob:
0.082 m
Significant
20–25 m (nadir), improvement in
[19] Canon 550D Nadir, POI Nature, River 3.5 ha 80/90
18 m (POI) horizontal and
vertical accuracy
Increases
z-accuracy
DJI M210,
significantly
[22] senseFly eBee X, Nadir, oblique 80–100 m Permafrost 0.3–0.5 ha 70/80
(MAE from 0.2 m
DJI Mavic Pro
(nadir) to 0.03 m
(nadir + oblique))
Nadir
significantly
higher standard
deviation and
DJI Phantom Hilly, steep
[24] Nadir, oblique 30–60 m n.a. n.a. mean error than
4 RTK ravines
oblique images or
combination of
nadir and
oblique images
Reduce the
Volcanic rock doming effect by
[37] Canon 450D Nadir, oblique Varying n.a. n.a.
sample up to two orders
of magnitude
Improved
DJI Phantom Nadir, oblique, accuracy by
[45] 49 m Flat, hilly 27.4 ha 80/70
3 Pro POI 5 to 9 orders
of magnitude
50–90%
90 m (nadir), 50 m 80/75 (nadir),
[46] FlyNovex Nadir, oblique Urban n.a. improvement in
(oblique) 80/80 (oblique)
accuracy
Accuracies of
oblique images in
DJI Phantom 90/90, 90/70, the range 20–35°
[47] Nadir, oblique 40 m Hilly 0.7 ha
3 Pro 70/70 higher than
oblique images
0–15°
DJI Phantom Plateau, steep Error reduction
[48] Nadir, oblique 65 m n.a. 80/80
4 Pro ravines up to 50%
Combination
nadir + oblique
100 m (nadir),
DJI Phantom with best results,
[49] Nadir, oblique 75/125 m Fallow land, rural n.a. 75/75
4 RTK higher oblique
(oblique)
angles with
better results
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 6 of 26

When taking oblique images, the off-nadir angle of the camera is critical. Numerous
publications have examined which off-nadir angle gives the best results. Stumpf et al. [50]
point out that an off-nadir angle above 30° leads to poorer results, so oblique images should
be taken with an off-nadir angle smaller than 30°. However, notably smaller off-nadir angles
can also reduce the doming error [37]. Moreover, off-nadir angles between 20° and 35°
enhance accuracy to a greater degree than smaller off-nadir angles [47]. Concurrently,
studies have demonstrated that oblique images captured at an off-nadir angle of 30°
produce the highest level of accuracy [22,49]. Other recommended optimal off-nadir angles
include 10–20° [51], 25–45° [19], 20–45° [42], and 35° [52]. Given the variability inherent in
individual experiments, a universally agreed upon optimal off-nadir angle may never be
established. Nevertheless, it has been consistently demonstrated across all experiments that
the implementation of off-nadir angles invariably enhances the accuracy of DSMs, even
though the optimal angle may vary according to the specifics of each experiment. It can
be deduced that oblique view images are advantageous in urban areas as well as in flat or
hilly natural areas. Griffiths and Burningham [41] showed in their work that especially flat
and structurally weak study areas cause the doming effect. Therefore, it can be assumed
that especially when viewing flat areas, the acquisition of additional oblique images should
be considered.

1.3.2. Novel Flight Patterns

The proposition for devising innovative, bespoke flight patterns to optimize the accu-
racies in SfM processing is gaining traction, complementing the incorporation of oblique
image capture. It has been observed that specific UAV flight designs can substantially
reduce doming error. Certain strategies such as the combination of POI and nadir flight
patterns, which collectively leverage the strengths of both nadir and oblique imaging, have
been identified as particularly effective [4,45]. This approach mitigates the limitations of
the exclusive acquisition of either nadir images or oblique imagery as seen in independent
POI flight designs. Other suggested flight designs involve multiple intersecting circular
trajectories, enabling the integration of numerous focal points within a single flight design.
Such approaches expand the spatial limits of POI-based flight patterns while concurrently
minimizing doming effects [4]. The subsequent study delineates and assesses two advanced
flight patterns relative to the existing nadir, oblique, and POI flight designs. In addition to
enhancing Z-accuracy in the resultant DSMs, the study also considers the optimization of
flight time per captured area.

1.3.3. Scope of This Study

In our understanding, there has been no comparison of these novel flight designs
with the widely used nadir and oblique flight designs and its impact on the robust-
ness and accuracy of photogrammetric networks created from UAV-based photogram-
metry. Therefore, in this study, we offer an in-depth exploration of how varying flight
designs—specifically POI, spiral, loop, nadir, and oblique,—and two different altitudes
influence the stability and accuracy of the photogrammetric network and the subsequent
digital surface models. Our aim is to provide a deeper understanding of the trade-offs
and benefits associated with each flight design to enhance the quality and reliability of
photogrammetric data gathered in UAV survey missions.

2. Materials and Methods

The following section introduces all the necessary information on the study site char-
acteristics, UAV data acquisition using novel flight patterns, the reference data collection,
processing of the UAV data products and methodology for evaluating the systematic height
deformations of the UAV DSMs. Figure 2 shows the general workflow from the resam-
pled UAV DSMs and further processing in order to produce the necessary analysis height
difference model products (HDMs).
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 7 of 26

Figure 2. Workflow of processing the SfM-MVS based HDMs. Green/yellow = input data, white =
processing, red = output data. HDM = height difference model.

2.1. Study Site “Windknollen”

The UAV data were recorded in Cospeda, a district of the city of Jena in the central
German state of Thuringia. The study area is located in the area of the “Windknollen”. An
overview of the study area is given in Figure 3. The study area, which is located in the area
of shell limestone slopes of the western Saaleplatte in the nature reserve “Windknollen”,
covers an area of 222 m by 253 m (5.6 ha) at an elevation between 345 m and 360 m a.s.l.
Predominant habitat types are extensive mown meadows of flat and hilly country as well
as unmanaged chalk heath (German: Trespen-Schwingel-Kalk-Trockenrasen). The study area is
mostly free of woody vegetation and is characterized by a flat to gently sloping plateau site.
It is also interspersed with temporary small water bodies, which were not filled with water
at the time of the surveys [53]. The aerial surveys were carried out as part of a cooperation
agreement with the Jena City Administration. When selecting a suitable survey area, it was
important to find as little overgrowing vegetation and low relief energy as possible, which
is the case for the presented survey area. Based on the CORINE land cover map of the
Copernicus service, the land cover of the study area is characterized as natural grassland
within a near-natural area [54].

Figure 3. Map of the study area (red) and masked study area (orange) with the locations of ten
ground control points (black), all datasets are projected in WGS 84/UTM zone 32N. The Jena district
of Cospeda is located in the western area. The city of Jena is located to the south of the study area.

During the computation of the elevation difference products, discrepancies between

the UAV and lidar data were observed in the southeastern region of the study area. These
discrepancies are attributable to variations in vegetation height. Given these localized
inconsistencies, it was deemed necessary to revise the boundaries of the study area to ensure
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 8 of 26

the integrity of the analysis. The UAV flights were conducted between late spring and the
beginning of summer 2022, while the lidar data were recorded in winter (February 2020).
During the UAV flight period, the tree and shrub structures had pronounced foliage. In
contrast, the vegetation during the lidar flight period should have had no foliage, allowing
the laser pulse to penetrate deeper into the vegetation, resulting in a lower measured height
in the lidar DSM [55,56]. The area of the cropped inconsistency here was 3500 m2 . Through
masking, the area of the adjusted study area consists of an area of 5.25 ha. The masked study
area is shown in Figure 3.

2.2. UAV Flight Patterns

The flight designs were created as waypoint missions using a Python 3.9 script and
uploaded to the “Mission Hub” of the proprietary software “Litchi 4.23.0” [57]. This was
necessary, as the utilized UAV “Da-Jiang Innovations Science and Technology Co., Ltd.’s
Shenzhen, China (DJI) Mini 2” does not natively support waypoint missions (see Table 2
for a detailed overview of the DJI Mini 2). The “Litchi” application allows for autonomous
flying based on preprogrammed waypoints with specific predefined camera angle and
acquisition instructions. In order to capture the influence of the flight altitude on the DSM
accuracy, all flights were conducted at two different altitudes: 120 m and 80 m above the
launch point. Accordingly, ten UAV flights were conducted on each of the five total survey
days, resulting in a total of 50 flights (see Table 3). Repeated flying of the same flight
patterns was intended to identify random errors.

Table 2. UAV specifications of DJI Mini 2 [58].

UAV DJI Mini 2

GNSS GPS/GLONASS/Galileo
Image sensor DJI FC7303; 1/2,3”-CMOS; Focal length 24 mm (35 mm equivalent)
No. of pixels 4000 × 3000 (12 MP)
Focal length 4.49 mm
Field of view 73° (horizontal); 53° (vertical); 84° (diagonal)
Electronic shutter 4–1/8000 s
Data format DNG (16 bit)
Aircraft weight 249 g

Table 3. UAV missions and acquisition parameters for both 120 m and 80 m altitudes. All values are
averaged for the five survey dates. The camera acquisition parameters were set to “auto” to balance
any brightness differences between images. The covered area refers to the entire area covered by the
UAV acquisitions. The area of interest (see Figure 3), is a subset of the UAV coverage area.

Missions (120 m)
Parameter Nadir Oblique POI Spiral Loop
Avg. number of images 93 90 123 161 128
Avg. flight time (min) 14 14 6 9 7
Gimbal angle (°) 0 30 50 0–50 17–43
Max. geometric resolution (cm) 4.12 4.93 6.94 5.46 4.75
Overlap (front/side) (%) 80/80 80/80 NA NA NA
Flight speed (m/s) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Missions (80 m)
Parameter Nadir Oblique POI Spiral Loop
Avg. number of images 182 183 123 159 127
Avg. flight time (min) 19 19 6 9 7
Gimbal angle (°) 0 30 61 0–61 26–54
Max. geometric resolution (cm) 2.8 3.35 5.27 4.3 3.64
Overlap (front/side) (%) 80/80 80/80 NA NA NA
Flight speed (m/s) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

Five different flight designs were designed to perform the aerial surveys: nadir, oblique
(30° off-nadir), POI, spiral, and loop. The camera of the DJI Mini 2 drone is pointed vertically
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 9 of 26

toward the ground (0°) during nadir flights. The straight and mutually parallel trajectories
of the UAV are applied to both the nadir and oblique views. Cross-pattern flights were
not used as the grid patterns already took the longest flight time. The arrangement of the
trajectories allowed an image overlap of 80% in the horizontal and vertical directions. The
oblique view images were captured with a gimbal angle of 30° off-nadir. The identical flight
paths of both flight designs are shown in Figure 4A. The concept of the POI flight pattern
involves the definition of a reference or central point. This reference point is circled by the
UAV. Along the flight path, the UAV acquires off-nadir imagery data at regular intervals,
all of which is aligned with the reference point [4]. It is important to note here that while
the horizontal angle (along-track) changes for each image, the vertical angle (perpendicular
to track) stays the same for the entire mission.

Figure 4. (A) Nadir and oblique view flight plan, the markers (purple) show individual waypoints
on the UAV’s flight paths (yellow). The camera captures the image data with an angle of 0° (nadir
flight pattern) and off-nadir angle of 30° (oblique view images). (B) POI flight plan, where the UAV
circles the reference point (camera symbol in the center of the circular flight path) on the flight path.
(C) Spiral flight plan where the UAV orbits the center reference point on the flight path in a spiral orbit.
(D) Loop flight plan with three reference points (camera symbols), around which the UAV circles in
an elliptical pattern. All figures are taken from the “Mission Hub” of the “Litchi” application.

A clear advantage of this flight pattern is the acquisition of image data at different
horizontal angles relative to nadir missions, as these include more key points and, thus,
more geometrically consistent points and link lines (see Section 1.2). The off-nadir gimbal
angle is set to 50° for 120 m flight altitude and to 61° for the 80 m flight altitude in order
to keep the reference point centered. A disadvantage of POI flights is the limited spatial
coverage. Sanz-Ablanedo et al. [4] recommend that the size of the survey area should not
exceed four to five times the flight altitude, otherwise the optical axes at the edges of the
survey area become too skewed. The flight design is visualized using Figure 4B.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 10 of 26

In addition to the conventional flight designs mentioned above, two other novel flight
patterns were created to be tested for accuracy in this work (see Section 1.3.2). These include
the spiral flight (Figure 4C) and the loop flight (Figure 4D). For the spiral flights, a central
reference point is defined and the camera is pointed at this point throughout the flight. The
drone starts its flight over this reference point and then flies outward in a spiral trajectory
at ever increasing intervals. This results in the area being imaged with steep horizontal
and vertical angles at the beginning of the flight and progressively flatter horizontal and
vertical angles as the flight continues. In this way, the flight pattern combines both nadir
and oblique view acquisition patterns (at the beginning) and POI flight patterns at greater
distances from the starting point. The off-nadir gimbal angle ranges from 0° to 50° for the
spiral flight missions and from 17° to 43° for the loop flight missions (see Table 3).
The other novel flight pattern is the loop flight, which represents several connected
POI flights recorded one after the other. Several points of interest, or reference points, are
defined along a horizontal axis. The drone circles around these points in the form of an
ellipse along the defined flight path, whereby each reference point has its own elliptical
flight path around it. Each reference point is thereby centered within the respective ellipse
by the camera during the recording. This ensures that each image is focused on that
point. After the first ellipse is flown by the drone, the drone transitions to flying over the
adjacent ellipse, aligning itself with the adjacent reference point. The loop flight is thus
intended to take advantage of the aforementioned benefit of POI flights, and by flying
ellipse-like flight patterns multiple times in the process, achieve greater coverage of the
study area (compared to POI flights), within a shorter time (compared to nadir and oblique
flights). One advantage of this flight design over the normal POI flight is the change in
both horizontal and vertical angle, which further improves the photogrammetric network
(see Section 1.2). It should be added that the resolution of POI-based imagery can vary. For
example, the resolution is lowest near the reference point and increases as the distance from
the flight path decreases. Outside the flight path, the resolution subsequently decreases
again. In all three novel flight designs, a fixed photo time interval of three seconds was
selected, as this was the maximum interval speed for this camera model.
It is critical to acknowledge that with all novel flight designs, an alteration in flight
altitude instigates a corresponding modification in viewing angles, which subsequently
affects the operation of the SfM algorithm. Additionally, varying flight altitudes may lead
to the extraction of features at disparate scales, which are then incorporated into the SfM
workflow. This variance introduces complexities when attempting to directly compare
outcomes between two flight altitudes, and as such, these should be understood as distinct
use cases tested within the context of this study. Therefore, the two flight altitudes primarily
serve as indicative scenarios, offering insights into the expected behavior of each flight
design. The surveys took place on five days, 10 May, 18 May, 19 May, 28 June, and
5 July 2022. These dates were selected to ensure that similar meteorological conditions
prevailed on all survey days (low wind speed, cloud-free sky). The grassy vegetation did
not change during the surveys or even during the two months of the entire survey time.
The flight missions were all carried out between the late morning (10:30 a.m. UTC+2) and
early afternoon (02:00 p.m. UTC+2), so no strong illumination changes can be expected.
The camera acquisition parameters were set to “auto” for all flights in order to ensure
similar brightness levels for all images as the spectral accuracy was no priority in this flight
campaign. In addition, ten GCPs were placed and measured with the “ppm 10xx-04 full
RTK GNSS” [59] sensor in conjunction with a Novatel VEXXIS® GNSS-500 Series L1/L2-
Antenna [60]. It should be noted that the GCPs were used solely as check points and were
not included in the processing of the UAV data. The distribution of the ten GCPs (artificial
30 × 30 cm red and white plastic boards) is shown in Figure 3. Each GCP was measured
20 times and the averaged position (XYZ-accuracy < 0.03 m) was stored. The selected
study site was deemed appropriate for this investigation, as low-relief and homogeneous
landscapes are considered particularly challenging for SfM workflows [41]. The area thus
serves as a suitable test environment for UAV-based monitoring procedures.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 11 of 26

2.3. SfM Processing of the UAV Data

All datasets were independently processed using the photogrammetry software
Metashape 1.8.3 (Agisoft LLC) utilizing a batch script to ensure similar processing for
each dataset of each survey (see Table 4). For each dataset, a sparse point cloud, dense
point cloud, and DSM was calculated. The raw DNG (digital negative) images were im-
ported without previous preprocessing and location information extracted from the EXIF
(exchangeable image file format) data. The SfM parameters are briefly explained in Table 5.

Table 4. Summary of the UAV processing parameters (Agisoft Metashape v1.8.3) used for the
processing of all datasets. f, focal length; cx and cy, principal point offset; k1, k2, and k3, radial
distortion coefficients; p1 and p2, tangential distortion coefficients.

Processing Parameters Parameter Values

Photo alignment accuracy High
Image preselection Generic/Source
Key point limit 40,000
Tie point limit 4000
Guided image matching No
Adaptive camera model fitting No
Camera positional accuracy 10 m
Adapted camera parameters f, cx, cy, k1–k3, p1, p2
Dense cloud quality High
Depth filtering Off

Table 5. Concise explanation of parameters from UAV data processing results.

Parameter Explanation
No. of tie points The total number of valid matching points between different images.
The root mean square error between the reconstructed 3D point and its original 2D projection
Reprojection error (pix)
on the image. Measured in pixels.
No. of points (dense cloud) The total number of 3D points generated in the dense point cloud during processing.
f The estimated focal length of the camera measured in pixels.
The estimated coordinates of the principal point, which is where the optical axis of the lens
cx, cy
intersects the image plane.
k1, k2, k3 The estimated coefficients for radial distortion correction.
p1, p2 The estimated coefficients for tangential distortion correction.
Average error in camera pos. (X, Y, Z) (m) The average error in determining the camera’s position in X-, Y-, and Z-directions.
The root mean square error of the positions of check points, which are pre-known reference
RMSE of check points (X, Y, Z) (m)
points, in X-, Y-, and Z-directions.
Signifies average tie point projections per image and per tie point, influencing 3D reconstruction
Projections per image/per tie point
accuracy in SfM workflows.
Quantifies image overlaps and their distribution per image and per tie point, crucial for accurate
Intersections per image/per tie point
3D point positioning. Optimal intersecting angles enhance reconstruction stability and accuracy.

The use of ground control points (GCPs) as checkpoints revealed that the vertical UAV
GNSS values from the Mini 2 were frequently inaccurate, often deviating by more than a
dozen meters from the actual flight altitude. Consequently, the relative barometric altitude,
which is recorded with each image, was used in conjunction with the measured altitude
of the launch point GCP to significantly enhance the Z-accuracy of each image. Given the
sub-optimal accuracy of the GNSS module, a positional accuracy of 10 m was maintained
for the processing. Even though the same UAV was deployed for all flight surveys, the
camera parameters were independently calculated for each dataset. The resulting practical
subset of the study area, which is significantly smaller at 5.25 ha, is centrally positioned
beneath all flight paths of the missions (see Section 2.1). Due to different camera viewing
angles, each mission design achieved a distinct area coverage extent. It is important to
note that the outer reaches of the coverage extent do not provide valuable data because
of the extremely low resolution and significant distortion. Additionally, the processing
results for each dataset show a great difference in point density and point number as well
as some difference in ground sampling resolution. As the datasets are later resampled to
10 m resolution, this difference is negligible.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 12 of 26

Table 6 compares estimated camera model parameters for various mission designs at
different flight altitudes, demonstrating a notable variance in the estimated focal length (f)
between different mission designs. The nadir mission, in particular, showcases a unique
trend, where its estimated focal length substantially deviates from other designs, regardless
of the flight altitude. For instance, at a flight altitude of 120 m, the focal length (measured
in pixels) for the nadir mission is estimated to be 2731.81, while the focal lengths for the
oblique, POI, spiral, and loop missions are all relatively close to each other, with estimates
ranging from 2911.55 to 2945.83. This trend continues at a flight altitude of 80 m, where
the estimated focal length for the nadir mission (2823.92) remains distinct from the others,
which are in the range of 2911.45 to 2943.29. This significant misestimation of the focal
length in the nadir mission might be responsible for the large absolute offsets observed
for Z-direction positioning. This indicates the critical role that mission design plays in
the estimation of camera parameters, especially the focal length, and subsequently, its
impact on 3D positioning accuracy. When calibrating the camera using Metashape’s built-
in calibration pattern, the following camera parameters are estimated: f: 2941.78, cx: −1.266,
cy: −10.03, k1: 0.23, k2: −1.72, k3: 0.54, p1: 1.7 × 10−4 , p2: 2.9 × 10−4 . At least the estimated
focal length closely aligns with the values estimated using oblique images like in the novel
flight designs (see Table 6). As the built-in calibration did not yield better results but rather
a stronger deformation, it was omitted in this study.

Table 6. Comparison of estimated camera model parameters for mission designs at different flight
altitudes (80 m vs. 120 m), averaged over five repetitions. The parameters include the estimated focal
length (f), principal point offsets (cx, cy), radial distortion coefficients (k1, k2, k3), and tangential
distortion coefficients (p1, p2).

Parameter (Avg. 5 Repeats) Nadir Oblique POI Spiral Loop

120 m Flight Altitude
f 2731.81 2911.55 2945.83 2938.70 2927.75
cx, cy 6.36, −9.08 3.08, −8.82 0.49, −12.79 2.48, −5.12 3.60, −5.23
k1, k2, k3 0.17, −0.43, 0.27 0.17, −0.51, 0.36 0.11, −0.35, 0.22 0.11, −0.34, 0.21 0.14, −0.38, 0.30
2.2 ×10−4 , −7.0 ×10−5 , −1.8 ×10−4 , −3.1 ×10−4 , −3.2 ×10−4 ,
p1, p2
9.0 ×10−4 −5.0 ×10−4 6.7 ×10−4 3.4 ×10−4 4.1 ×10−4
80 m Flight Altitude
f 2823.92 2911.45 2941.06 2933.99 2933.29
cx, cy 5.10, −10.28 1.22, −8.97 0.35, −11.71 3.54, −5.41 3.32, −6.49
k1, k2, k3 0.17, −0.49, 0.33 0.17, −0.27, 0.37 0.11, −0.36, 0.23 0.12, −0.39, 0.26 0.13, −0.42, 0.28
2.0 ×10−4 , −3.8 ×10−5 , −1.7 ×10−4 , −2.3 ×10−4 , −3.7 ×10−4 ,
p1, p2
7.8 ×10−4 −5.5 ×10−5 6.7 ×10−4 3.8 ×10−4 3.6 ×10−4

2.4. Generation of the UAV DSM Datasets

In order to estimate any doming effects within the UAV-generated DSMs, a reference
digital terrain model (DTM) dataset was obtained from the “Geoportal Thüringen” of
the Thuringian State Office of Land Management and Geological Information (German
acronym: TLBG). This dataset is based on lidar elevation data acquired in 2020 and has
a resolution of 1 m with stated XY-accuracy of 0.15 m and Z-accuracy of 0.09 m. The
lidar-based elevation data were selected as the reference dataset because we employed an
area-based approach to evaluate deformation patterns in the SfM workflow, necessitating
a complementary lidar-based DSM of the whole study site, supplemented by 10 GCPs,
for comprehensive accuracy assessment. The metadata also provided a projection in the
ETRS89/UTM zone 32N coordinate system and in the German Main Elevation Network
2016 (DHHN16) in height. Thus, the drone datasets were reprojected to ETRS89/UTM
zone 32N. The major difference between the lidar dataset and the drone data is reflected in
the elevation reference used in each case. While the state office uses the German Combined
Quasigeoid 2016 (GCG2016), and thus, orthometric heights to estimate elevation, the
drone’s GNSS sensor measures ellipsoidal heights. The resulting systematic height offset
between both datasets (geoid undulation) was corrected by applying a factor of 45.8122 m.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 13 of 26

The UAV-based DSM and reference DTM datasets were also resampled to 10 m using
bilinear resampling [61] to rule out any small-scale influence of changing vegetation cover
between 2020 and the time of the UAV surveys.

2.5. Evaluation of Systematic Height Differences

First, the RMSE as well as the mean offset of both datasets was calculated. In addition,
a height difference model (HDM) between both datasets (lidarz —DSMz ) was calculated.
Based on this product, the slope and aspect were calculated for each pixel of the HDM. The
slope indicates the rate of change in the elevation difference of each pixel, while the aspect
indicates the direction of inclination of each difference pixel in a given direction (Figure 5).
The process to calculate the mean offset involves subtracting the UAV DSM from the
reference DTM and then averaging the resulting pixel values to derive the absolute offset
between the two datasets (see Equation (1)). To explore potential doming effects within the
generated DSMs, we focused on the height difference models. Specifically, we extracted the
height difference values at these five points: the central point and the four corner points of
the DSMs. This approach facilitated the detection of doming effects by comparing elevation
disparities at these crucial points within each model. The maximum and minimum height
differences were identified, and their horizontal distance was computed. This distance was
then used to calculate the normalized slope per 100 m within the height difference model
(see Equation (2)).
Mean O f f set = DTMLidar − DSMU AV (1)
EdgePixelmax − EdgePixelmin
Normalized slope = × 100 (2)
Distance
Curvature = CenterPixel − Mean EdgePixels (3)

Figure 5. The extraction of curvature and slope deformation was performed by focusing on the
central and edge pixels, leading to the computation of digital surface model (DSM) analysis products.
These products were then employed to interpret the effects of deformation associated with various
flight designs.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 14 of 26

We used the normalized slope to evaluate the tilt of each model. The average of the
height difference values of the four corner points was calculated, and a curvature value
was determined for each model (see Equation (3)). The curvature value was obtained by
comparing the height difference value of the central pixel with the mean value of the corner
points. A bowling effect in the original UAV-derived DSM was identified if the central pixel
value was higher than the mean value of the corner points [4]. Conversely, a doming effect
was indicated if the central pixel value was lower than the mean value of the corner points.
Note that these effects are inversely visualized in the height difference model (HDM) due
to the nature of our analysis (see Figure 5).

2.6. Tie Point Angle Analysis

Based on the work by Sanz-Ablanedo et al. [4], the number of intersections and the
angles between the epipolar lines of every tie point were calculated to gain more insight
into the sources of potential uncertainties. In this context, “intersections” refer to tie point
intersections arising from each homologous SfM local feature—essentially, they are the
overlap areas in images where corresponding local features meet and provide a common
point of reference. “Epipolar lines” represent the intersection of the epipolar plane (formed
by the camera centers and a point in space) with the image plane. These lines facilitate
image matching by constraining the search for corresponding points along a line, rather
than throughout the entire image. The tie points provide the foundation for the model to
estimate the real-world locations of each surface feature as well as to estimate the camera
parameters. Understanding the behavior of the tie points should provide insights into
the connection between flight mission design and model processing capabilities. It is
hypothesized that not only the number of intersections of images at each tie point play a
role in the model accuracy, but also the distribution of viewing angles of images towards
the respective tie points. Sanz-Ablanedo et al. [4] suggest optimal angles of 60° for the
highest model accuracy, while other literature highlights the need for a stable network of
intersections based on a wider distribution of angles of intersection [35,42,44].

3. Results
In this section, we show the improvements brought by utilizing the presented novel
flight designs compared to the established designs in this regard. For the missions flown
at 120 m altitude, the number of tie points ranges from 12,016 for nadir missions up to
30,910 points for oblique missions. The dense point clouds contain between 17 million
and 27 million points depending on the mission design, with the nadir and loop missions
being on the lower end and the oblique, POI, and spiral missions being on the higher end.
Comparing the root mean square error (RMSE) of the datasets against the check points, a
considerable difference between mission designs becomes apparent. For nadir missions the
Z-RMSE value reaches values of over 25 m, while the Z-RMSE for the other mission types
never exceeds 5 m. For the missions flown at 80 m the number of tie points ranges from
28,130 points for POI missions to 67,404 points for oblique missions. The dense point clouds
contain between 13 million and 40 million points, with POI and spiral missions being on
the lower end and the nadir and oblique missions on the higher end. The nadir missions
still show the highest Z-RMSE value, but here the POI and spiral missions also show
higher values than the oblique and loop mission designs (see Table 7). The results section
presents the different observed HDM deformations depending on the flight mission design,
visualizing the deformation types using 3D plots as well as calculating the curvature and
slope for each dataset.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 15 of 26

Table 7. UAV data processing results, estimated camera model parameters averaged for each mission
design based on five repetitions and check point accuracies. The camera parameters were estimated
for each dataset independently.

Mission Design Nadir Oblique POI Spiral Loop

120 m Flight Altitude
No. of tie points 1.5 ×104 2.5 ×104 1.8 ×104 1.7 ×104 1.9 ×104
Reprojection error (pix) 1.07 1.19 0.68 0.65 0.82
No. of points (dense cloud) 2.0 ×107 2.6 ×107 2.1 ×107 2.3 ×107 1.8 ×107
Average error in camera pos. (X, Y, Z) (m) 0.96, 1.25, 1.22 0.95, 0.65, 0.63 0.23, 0.28, 0.26 0.56, 0.74, 0.84 0.54, 0.67, 0.74
RMSE of check points (X, Y, Z) (m) 4.26, 3.71, 19.65 1.43, 1.91, 2.03 1.20, 2.02, 1.44 1.40, 2.38, 2.51 1.38, 1.52, 2.02
No. of projections 1.4 ×105 1.8 ×105 3.1 ×105 3.0 ×105 3.5 ×105
per image/per tie point 1.5 ×103 /9 2.0 ×103 /7 2.5 ×103 /17 1.9 ×103 /17 2.7 ×103 /18
No. of intersections 9.5 ×105 8.7 ×105 4.3 ×106 6.3 ×106 6.5 ×106
per image/per tie point 1.0 ×104 /67 9.7 ×103 /32 3.4 ×104 /241 3.9 ×104 /352 5.1 ×104 /334
80 m Flight Altitude
No. of tie points 3.9 × 104 5.1 × 104 3.0 × 104 3.5 × 104 3.2 × 104
Reprojection error (pix) 1.10 1.16 0.68 0.83 0.85
No. of points (dense cloud) 3.4 × 107 3.9 × 107 1.5 × 107 2.2 × 107 2.6 × 107
Average error in camera pos. (X, Y, Z) (m) 0.45, 0.48, 1.13 0.57, 0.47, 0.55 0.22, 0.27, 0.26 0.20, 0.24, 0.48 0.20, 0.23, 0.30
RMSE of check points (X, Y, Z) (m) 2.32, 1.62, 6.50 0.91, 0.41, 0.95 0.90, 1.89, 1.51 0.81, 1.73, 1.16 0.69, 1.13, 0.65
No. of projections 4.4 × 105 4.5 × 105 3.8 × 105 4.0 × 105 3.6 × 105
per image/per tie point 2.5 × 103 /11 2.4 × 103 /9 3.0 × 103 /13 2.5 × 103 /11 2.8 × 103 /11
No. of intersections 3.5 × 106 3.1 × 106 3.3 × 106 4.2 × 106 3.6 × 106
per image/per tie point 2.0 × 104 /93 1.7 × 104 /60 2.6 × 104 /112 2.6 × 104 /123 2.8 × 104 /113

This allows for the separation between low- and high-deformation mission designs
in order to specify an optimized flight design for consumer-grade UAV systems. Figure 6
represents examples of the different deformations which occurred in this study. The data
shown represents the resampled HDM with the masked inconsistency (top right corner)
where all axes dimensions are given in meters. It should be noted, that the z-axis value range
changes for each subplot, highlighting the height differences with different degrees. The
camera model parameters give a first insight into the behavior of the processing algorithms
depending on the input images of the different mission designs. Table 6 shows clear
differences in the camera model parameters between nadir and the four remaining mission
designs. The estimation of focal lengths, for example, is very similar for the oblique, POI,
loop, and spiral missions, while it is considerably lower for the nadir missions. The average
error in the camera positions shows the lowest values for the POI design and highest values
for the nadir design. The same pattern holds true for the RMSE of the check points used
to determine the absolute error in the precisely measured GCPs. While the comparison
with the ten placed GCPs serves as an easy way to determine the overall absolute errors
of the dataset, a more detailed review of the internal distortions of each produced DSM is
necessary to derive the optimal mission flight design for minimal error susceptibility.

3.1. Height Difference Products

The mean offset of the entire UAV-based DSM and the reference DTM already presents
strong differences between flight designs (see column #7 of Table 8). For the nadir missions
in 120 m flight altitude the offset between DSM and reference DTM ranges from −1.31 m
to over −15.72 m, while ranging from −1.43 m to −1.40 m for the remaining four flight
designs, where the values rarely exceed −1 m. The standard deviation between all five
survey days for the offset reaches over 9 m for the nadir missions (9.01 m) and stays around
one meter for the remaining four mission designs (POI: 0.97 m, loop: 0.69 m, oblique: 0.96 m,
spiral: 1.18 m). This not only shows a stronger vertical absolute error for nadir missions
compared to oblique designs, but also a more unstable behavior with unpredictable changes
in error size for each new mission.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 16 of 26

Table 8. Overview of computed DSM analysis data derived from masked height difference models.
“Offset CenterPixel” refers to the Z-value deviation of the HDM center pixel from the reference DTM
(m), “Offset EdgePixels” denotes the mean Z-value deviation of the four HDM corner pixels from the
reference DTM (m), “curvature” quantifies the degree of DSM deformation (m), “normalized slope”
signifies the normalized elevation difference per 100 m (m), “mean offset” represents the mean offset
between all UAV DSM and lidar DSM pixels (m), and “mean slope” is the average slope of the height
difference model (°). For all parameters, an ideal value is zero, indicating no deviation. In the color
coding, red corresponds to high negative deviation and blue to high positive deviation.

Offset Offset Normalized

Date Filename Curvature Mean Offset Mean Slope
CenterPixel EdgePixels Slope
10 May 2022 Nadir_120m −14.79 −17.67 2.88 −1.24 −15.72 1.31
18 May 2022 Nadir_120m −11.06 −13.13 −1.93 −1.31 −18.09 3.08
19 May 2022 Nadir_120m −18.2 −11.16 −1.04 −1.12 −15.57 2.75
28 Jun 2022 Nadir_120m −1.9 −1.58 −1.32 −1.11 −1.31 0.64
5 July 2022 Nadir_120m −1.07 −1.45 −1.62 −1.15 −1.09 1.03
10 May 2022 Nadir_80m −1.88 −13.32 3.44 −1.98 −11.06 1.42
18 May 2022 Nadir_80m −1.47 −1.09 −1.38 −1.22 −1.13 2.47
19 May 2022 Nadir_80m −10.08 −1.38 −1.7 −1.23 −1.29 2.95
28 Jun 2022 Nadir_80m −1.05 −1.49 −1.56 −1.39 −1.5 0.62
5 July 2022 Nadir_80m −1.44 −1.19 −1.25 −1.26 −1.89 1.64
10 May 2022 Oblique_120m −1.52 −1.53 0.01 −1.43 −1.43 0.49
18 May 2022 Oblique_120m −1.67 −1.34 −1.33 −1.26 −1.47 0.36
19 May 2022 Oblique_120m −1.3 −1.04 −1.26 −1.28 −1.14 0.29
28 Jun 2022 Oblique_120m −1.52 −1.36 −1.16 −1.53 −1.34 0.57
5 July 2022 Oblique_120m −1.69 −1.03 −1.66 −1.27 −1.48 0.33
10 May 2022 Oblique_80m −1.74 −1.66 −1.08 −1.4 −1.62 0.37
18 May 2022 Oblique_80m −1.65 −1.08 −1.57 −1.24 −1.37 0.35
19 May 2022 Oblique_80m −1.98 −1.44 −1.54 −1.12 −1.7 0.35
28 Jun 2022 Oblique_80m −1.63 −1.81 −1.82 −1.41 −1.36 0.38
5 July 2022 Oblique_80m −1.23 −1.26 −1.97 −1.59 −1.93 0.45
10 May 2022 POI_120m −1.1 −1.32 0.22 −1.31 −1.11 0.25
18 May 2022 POI_120m −1.97 −1 0.03 −1.22 −1.03 0.27
19 May 2022 POI_120m −1.81 −1.92 0.11 −1.19 −1.87 0.27
28 Jun 2022 POI_120m −1.45 −1.76 0.31 −1.28 −1.51 0.41
5 July 20225 POI_120m −1.43 −1.71 0.28 −1.07 −1.54 0.26
10 May 2022 POI_80m −1.12 −1.34 0.22 −1.19 −1.14 0.21
18 May 2022 POI_80m −1.82 −1.87 0.05 −1.03 −1.83 0.24
19 May 2022 POI_80m −1.28 −1.31 0.03 −1.29 −1.29 0.34
28 Jun 2022 POI_80m −1.34 −1.64 0.3 −1.15 −1.42 0.33
5 July 2022 POI_80m −1.2 −1.45 0.25 −1.04 −1.29 0.27
10 May 2022 Loop_120m −1.01 −1.95 −1.06 −1.07 −1.96 0.2
18 May 2022 Loop_120m −1.05 −1.87 −1.18 −1.22 −1.99 0.29
19 May 2022 Loop_120m −1.07 −1.84 −1.23 −1.24 −1 0.32
28 Jun 2022 Loop_120m −1.85 −1.94 0.09 −1.1 −1.82 0.32
5 July 2022 Loop_120m −1.27 −1.42 0.15 −1.17 −1.3 0.26
10 May 2022 Loop_80m −1.82 −1.93 0.11 −1.25 −1.82 0.23
18 May 2022 Loop_80m −1.88 −1.92 0.04 −1.1 −1.86 0.22
19 May 2022 Loop_80m −1.81 −1.61 −1.2 −1.24 −1.74 0.34
28 Jun 2022 Loop_80m −1.62 −1.94 0.32 −1.33 −1.66 0.31
5 July 2022 Loop_80m −1.87 −1.17 0.3 −1.31 −1.91 0.32
10 May 2022 Spiral_120m −1.8 −1.77 −1.03 −1.2 −1.74 0.3
18 May 2022 Spiral_120m −1.65 −1.58 −1.07 −1.16 −1.66 0.36
19 May 2022 Spiral_120m −1.91 −1.9 −1.01 −1.17 −1.94 0.27
28 Jun 2022 Spiral_120m −1.32 −1.61 0.29 −1.18 −1.4 0.33
5 July 2022 Spiral_120m −1 −1.09 0.09 −1.19 −1.08 0.24
10 May 2022 Spiral_80m −1.33 −1.28 −1.05 −1.32 −1.31 0.27
18 May 2022 Spiral_80m −1.34 −1.3 −1.04 −1.16 −1.33 0.29
19 May 2022 Spiral_80m −1.05 −1.01 −1.04 −1.16 −1.04 0.29
28 Jun 2022 Spiral_80m −1.74 −1.95 0.21 −1.37 −1.8 0.36
5 July 2022 Spiral_80m −1.1 −1.36 0.26 −1.15 −1.21 0.31

The same holds true for 80 m flight altitude but with overall improved accuracy. The
absolute offset ranges from −1.50 m to −11.06 m for the nadir missions while generally
staying below 1.5 m for all remaining flight profiles. The standard deviation at 80 m flight
altitude between all five survey days for the absolute offset is 3.21 m for the nadir missions,
1.04 m for the POI missions, 0.09 m for the loop missions, 0.32 m for the oblique missions,
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 17 of 26

and 0.81 m for the oblique flight designs. For all missions the offset is negative, meaning all
UAV-based DSMs are shifted above the reference lidar dataset to some degree.

Figure 6. 3D visualization of the different distortion effects observed in this study. Doming effect of
the Nadir_120m flight mission on 19 May 2022 (A), bowling effect of the Nadir_120m flight mission
on 10 May 2022 (B), slight doming effect of the Oblique_120m flight mission on 5 July 2022 (C). The
other flight designs (POI_120m on 10 May 2022 (D), Spiral_120m on 10 May 2022 (E), Loop_120m on
18 May 2022 (F)) all show a varying degree of tilted distortions with no dominant tilt direction. It
should be noted that the ∆z-axis (z-offset) range is different for each subplot.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 18 of 26

As expected, the different flight designs result in vastly different distortion charac-
teristics, showing doming, bowling, and tilting in varying degrees of severity. Only the
nadir missions present strong doming or bowling distortions, while doming (center higher
than edges) occurred on four out of five flights and bowling (center lower than edges)
only occurred on the 10 May 2022 flight (see Figure 6A,B). In the context of height dif-
ference product analysis, a larger center pixel value in the difference indicates a lower
corresponding center pixel in the original UAV-derived DSM. The bowling and doming
characterizations always refer to the UAV-derived DSM and not the HDM. The curvature
(difference between edge and center pixels) ranges from −1.93 m to +2.88 m at 120 m flight
altitude and from −1.70 m to 3.44 m at 80 m flight altitude for the nadir mission designs.
All other curvature values stay below 0.3 m, except for the oblique flight designs at 80 m
altitude which reach values of up to −1.97 m presenting a slight doming distortion (see
column #5 of Table 8). The absolute offset between the UAV and reference DSM is consis-
tently larger at the higher flight altitude across all flight designs. However, the doming
effect at 120 m altitude exhibits more pronounced deviation than at 80 m on three of the
five acquisition dates, with similar magnitudes observed on 28 Jun 2022 and 5 July 2022.
The oblique flight missions produced DSM models with slight systematic height
distortions, but the height offset was significantly less pronounced than in models based
on nadir images (see Figure 6C). The model from 28 Jun 2022 had the largest height
offset within the oblique flight missions, with a difference range of 1.5 m. While a slight
concave curvature can be observed for all oblique flight missions, the effect is not nearly as
pronounced as with the nadir flight missions. All other flight patterns (POI, loop, spiral)
do not show any doming or bowling effects across different dates but show systematic
tilting to some degree with no distinct tilt direction observable (see Figure 6D–F). It should
be noted that the tilting effects can range from below 5 cm elevation change per 100 m up
to over 1 m per 100 m depending on the flight pattern. Especially the POI and loop flight
missions present a low susceptibility to develop tilting effects in the processed DSMs (see
column #6 of Table 8).
As the absolute offset of the entire DTM can be corrected comparatively easily, the
internal and non-uniform distortions such as doming, bowling, or tilting are of greater
interest to achieve reliable processing results. For the practical application, a flight design
needs to present low susceptibility to distortions and no change in behavior due to other
external factors. Thus, the mean curvature and slope values for all survey times need
also be considered. The nadir flight missions show a mean curvature of −1.21 m with a
standard deviation of 3.95 m and mean slope value of −1.39 m with a standard deviation
of 0.43 m. While the other four flight mission show considerably lower curvature and slope
values, the loop and spiral flight design stand out, with a very stable curvature value of
−1.05 m (loop std. dev.: 0.15 m, spiral std. dev.: 0.13 m) and mean slope values of −1.16 m
(loop std. dev.: 0.07 m) and −1.18 m (spiral std. dev.: 0.01 m), even compared to the POI
and oblique flight designs.

3.2. Number of Intersections

Looking at the number of calculated projections during the creation of the sparse point
cloud for the flights at 120 m altitude, it becomes apparent that the POI, spiral and loop
flight designs result in considerably more projections (≥300,000) compared to the nadir
and oblique flight designs (<185,000). This also holds true for the number of projections
per tie point (nadir, oblique: ≤9; POI, loop, spiral: ≥17) in these datasets (see Table 7).
Interestingly, the number of projections per image are comparable between the oblique and
spiral and loop flight designs, while the nadir flight designs still show the lowest number
of projections per image and the POI and loop designs show the highest numbers. For
the flight missions at 80 m altitude, the behavior changes considerably (see Table 7). The
nadir and oblique flight missions show the highest number of projections (>440,000), while
the POI, spiral, and loop mission designs show slightly decreased numbers of projections
(<400,000). The number of projections per image and per tie point also remains relatively
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 19 of 26

comparable between all five datasets. All values are represented by the averaged values
over the five survey dates.
Analysis of the tie point intersections at the 120 m flight altitude reveals a similar
pattern to that of the projections. The nadir and oblique mission designs yield under
one million intersections, while the remaining three designs (POI, spiral, loop) generate
between 4.3 to 6.5 million intersections. The intersections per image vary around 10,000 for
the oblique and nadir missions, while for the other three designs they range between 34,000
and 51,000. The differences become even more pronounced when examining intersections
per tie point. Here, the oblique design records the fewest with 32.4, followed by the nadir
design at 66.7. The POI mission design exhibits moderate numbers, hovering around 241.2,
while the loop and spiral mission designs produce the highest number of intersections
per tie point, with respective averages of 334.3 and 352.4 (see Table 7). A notable shift in
behavior is observed at the lower flight altitude, akin to what was seen with the number of
projections. All the metrics related to intersections appear more aligned among the five
mission designs at 80 m flight altitude. The same holds true for the number of intersections
per image and per tie point. All values increase for the nadir and oblique mission designs
at the lower flight altitude while the values decrease for the POI, loop, and spiral mission
designs (see Table 7).
An important distinction to note is the handling of overlap settings across different
flight altitudes. While the nadir and oblique missions maintain a similar front and side
overlap of 80% for both altitudes, the POI, spiral, and loop missions adopt a different
approach. These latter missions retain their exact flight paths unchanged across altitudes,
leading to an effective reduction in image overlap when transitioning to the lower flight
altitude. As others have suggested [4,42,44], the comparatively low number of projections
as well as intersections for the oblique and nadir mission designs might contribute in
part to the lower stability of the photogrammetric network during the processing of the
data. However, even with the increased number of intersections in the lower altitude
missions, the nadir and oblique missions remain more unstable, with a higher susceptibility
to deformations compared to the novel flight designs POI, spirals and loops.

3.3. Tie Point Intersection Angles

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the angles of epipolar lines (intersections) for every
tie point as well as the total number of intersections for each flight design at 120 m flight
altitude. The values represent the cumulative sum of all five survey repetitions to better
visualize the behavior of each flight design. The first obvious observation is the very
high number of very small (>10°) angles for the circular POI flight design (blue). This
might be explained by the high number of very closely neighboring images with similar
viewing angles. According to [4], this behavior should lead to a weak network with high
susceptibility to distortions. That the degree of deformation remains low for this flight
design might be attributed to the very high number of overall intersections with another
peak at around 50°, which strengthen the photogrammetric network. In addition, the
viewing angle is always centered at a central point, leading to a broad sensor coverage for
each tie point, which could explain the more stable model estimation.
The angles of the loop flight design (black) show an overall very diverse angle distri-
bution, ranging from a peak at very low angles to >50° with another prominent peak at
around >30°. Even though the loop flight design is mostly a connected continuation of
the POI flight design, a very different distribution of intersection angles can be observed.
Here, the changing vertical angles of the sensor explain the difference compared to the
POI flight design. A similar pattern can be observed for the spiral flight design (orange),
where the peak is around 20°. Interestingly, with the spiral flight design, the intersection
angles range further (>90°) than with all other flight designs. The optimal angles of 60°
cited by [4] are only reached by this flight design, but no considerable improvement can be
observed compared to the POI or loop flight designs.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 20 of 26

Figure 7. Distribution of the angle intersections of the epipolar lines of all tie points for each mission
design at 120 m flight altitude (POI: red, nadir: green, loops: blue, spirals: black, oblique: orange)
and total number of intersections per mission design.

The nadir (red) and oblique (green) missions show a considerably lower overall
number of intersections compared to the POI, loop and spiral mission designs (see Table 7).
The relative distribution of intersection angles also shows some differences, with a relatively
low number of very low intersection angles and a first peak around 10° for both mission
designs. The distribution of angles for the nadir mission design shows multiple periodic
peaks in line with the periodic front and side overlap settings of 80% of the neighboring
images and the images next to the neighboring images. The additional peaks are reached at
15°, 20°, 35°, and 50° with a decrease in frequency with increasing angle size, in line with
the observations of [4]. The angle distribution of the oblique mission design only has a
second peak around 30° and the frequency falls off towards >50°.

4. Discussion
In this section, the potential effectiveness of novel flight patterns, specifically spiral
and loop designs, in minimizing systematic doming or bowling distortions and achieving
higher geometric accuracy compared to nadir and oblique flight patterns will be explored.
The advantages of these novel designs compared to existing suggestions such as the POI
flight pattern are discussed and the challenges of the study, including hardware- and
software-related biases, the impact of terrain on the performance of these novel flight
designs, and potential issues with the reference data used are brought into context.

4.1. Height Difference Products

The analyses of SfM-MVS-based DSMs conducted in this study revealed systematic
vertical doming and bowling effects, which are mostly attributable to unreliable camera
calibrations [25,35,42]. An independent camera calibration using Metashape’s built-in
chessboard calibration pattern was tested and yielded no significant improvement for the
nadir flight designs, while even leading to an increase in deformations for the novel flight
designs. An optimized flight design is, therefore, one feasible way to achieve improved
model accuracy. The deformation analysis revealed doming and bowling deformations,
which occurred only for the nadir and oblique flight designs as well as tilting in various
directions and varying strength. The dominant deformation form was doming (center
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 21 of 26

higher than edges), which aligns with findings from other publications [4]. Interestingly,
the absolute offset between the UAV datasets and reference data was exclusively negative,
meaning the UAV datasets were always offset above the actual elevation by some degree.
This could be attributed to the corrected UAV altitude using the barometric altitude as well
as a misestimation of the focal length biased towards one direction. One clear driver for
this behavior is hard to determine as there are many influencing factors on the estimated
elevation of the UAV dataset. The curvature values of the nadir flight patterns were
considerably higher than those of other flight patterns. The average curvature size, with
4.36 m (120 m) and 4.67 m (80 m), was also significantly higher than the doming size
(0.813 m) determined by [4]. The high deformation values presented in this study might
be explained by the use of very low-end consumer-grade hardware, namely, the DJI Mini
2 drones. Table 1 shows that most conducted studies either use higher-end hardware such
as the DJI Phantom series or even dedicated camera systems, which are expected to be
of higher build quality and have less internal hardware instabilities. The findings of this
study support the earlier conclusions that off-nadir image acquisition can help mitigate
the effects of doming and bowling in digital surface models, as suggested by multiple
studies [4,19,22,24,37,43,45–49]. The results of this study show that the use of novel flight
designs containing only oblique images from various horizontal angles leads to a noticeable
reduction in distortions caused by the widely used nadir flight patterns.
All surveys using novel flight designs showed no other deformation forms than tilting
of the entire surface model in one direction. Kaiser et al. [43] has shown the significant effort
necessary in correcting these errors in a post-processing manner. If the novel flight designs
can help reduce the errors based on the flight design and SfM processing beforehand, this
could lead to a more optimized and streamlined workflow from data acquisition to finalized
product with increased accuracy. This study supports the use of novel flight patterns such
as loop or spiral flights for drone surveys using low-cost UAVs without the need for GCPs
to reduce systematic errors. Based on the curvature values, it can be inferred that spiral and
loop flight patterns are suitable for minimizing systematic doming or bowling distortions
within DSM data. At the same time, they have the advantage of covering a larger area
compared to POI flight designs. All spiral and loop flight designs show low curvature
values, ranging from −1.07 m to 0.29 m (spiral) and −1.23 m to 0.32 m (loop). When
comparing the normalized slopes of both flight designs with the nadir and oblique designs,
it is evident that they produce significantly lower values. Simply using flight designs such
as grid-based oblique or POI flights also reduces these errors, but either with less effect or
with the introduction of additional challenges. The POI flight design, for example, leads to
a very uneven resolution distribution due to the missing image acquisitions at the center of
the survey site. In addition, the maximum area is limited, as the POI flight design results
in the optical axes becoming too oblique, with shallow viewing angles when applied to a
large area [4].
Previous studies focused on the augmentation of grid-based nadir flight designs with
additional oblique or POI images (see Table 1) [4,22,24,37,44]. While this approach certainly
brings some improvements, the uncertainties introduced by the nadir images still remain
to some degree in most cases. Using flight designs resulting only in oblique viewing
angles with varying vertical and/or horizontal angles could, thus, lead to even more stable
processing results. The decreased flight time for a similar area coverage with comparable
ground resolution is also noteworthy (see Table 3). These improvements could lead to an
increased adaption of consumer-grade UAV hardware for scientific applications and enable
access to the scientific process by a broader community as well as allow for easier data
acquisition in very remote areas. This is showcased in the project “UndercoverEisAgenten”,
where the developed novel flight designs are already applied by school students to generate
high-quality datasets for permafrost research using the same consumer drones [62,63]. This
proves the ease of use of the current UAV systems with the flight software to utilize the
novel flight designs. Additionally, the novel flight designs need considerably less flight
time to achieve the same area coverage with similar ground resolution of the results (see
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 22 of 26

Tables 3 and 4), which is itself another huge advantage for the application in remote areas
without abundant power sources.

4.2. External Influences

Certain hardware- or software-related issues have been suggested by previous studies
as potential sources of uncertainties and drivers of deformation, such as major lens distor-
tion, equipment malfunction, or incorrect application of SfM algorithms. However, these
influences have been largely dismissed through comprehensive investigations [4,64,65]. In
this study, the exact same UAV system was used for every acquisition but similar behavior
was observed with other drones of the same model during the preliminary testing phase.
The changing behavior of the deformations is, thus, most likely caused by insufficient
model stability based on the weak photogrammetric network caused by the flight de-
signs. Furthermore, the UAV flights were conducted exclusively in a flat area with sparse
vegetation. Particularly, testing the novel flight patterns on other terrain and vegetation
forms could be of great importance, as Ref. [41] found an influence of the geometry of the
study area on doming and bowling effects. It is noteworthy that the nadir flight missions
conducted in June and July, as well as the first acquisition in May, exhibit substantially
lower (>3 m for 120 m) curvature values in comparison to those carried out in the middle
of May (<7 m for 120 m). This variation in curvature values may be partially attributed
to subtle structural changes in the vegetation across these months. While such alterations
might not be visually apparent during an on-site inspection, they can potentially influence
the flight mission outcomes. More pronounced vegetation in June and July could have
generated more geometric structures within the image data, which in turn could have
strengthened the photogrammetric network, allowing the SfM-MVS algorithm to retrieve
more accurate tie points [35]. The use of the lowest-end, off-the-shelf hardware certainly
presents a challenge in itself, as the model uncertainties can be expected to be high. On the
other hand, this also strikingly shows the strength of these novel flight designs in bringing
down the errors in the derived surface models, with a decrease in errors measured in
multiple meters. In addition to these improvements, a substantial reduction in flight time is
noteworthy for the novel flight designs, while retaining a similar ground resolution for the
resulting datasets. Compared to the simpler POI flight design, the novel loop and spiral
flight designs also retain a homogeneous ground resolution for the entire area of interest,
similar to the established nadir and oblique flight designs.

4.3. Intersection and Projection Quality

While there are certainly many different approaches for the optimization of an SfM
workflow from data acquisition to final product, the time and processing power varies
widely depending on the chosen optimization approach. Additionally, some approaches
are more difficult to implement if there are no high-quality reference datasets available.
Most studies focus on the optimization of the workflow during or after processing (see
Table 1), which either requires a lot of post-processing [43], good reference data, for example
GCPs measured with RTK-DGNSS systems, or intricate knowledge of the internal camera
systems [42,44]. Optimizing the data acquisition phase of the workflow produces multiple
advantages, such as a reduced flight time and reduced processing time. By ensuring
a sufficiently high number of projections and varying the viewing angles for the SfM
workflow, a more stable photogrammetric network can be expected [3,4,42]. The results
show a three to six times higher number of projections as well as intersections for the
novel flight designs compared to nadir and even oblique survey designs with only 30% to
70% more images. This alone should help improve the accuracy and stability of the SfM
model output.
The results indicate that the POI, spiral, and loop flight designs have more calcu-
lated projections and a higher number of projections per tie point compared to the nadir
and oblique flight designs. This might suggest these designs create a more complex pho-
togrammetric network during image processing, potentially leading to higher accuracy
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 23 of 26

and stability. At 80 m flight altitude, this behavior is much less pronounced, with a very
similar number of projections and intersections for all five flight designs. This difference
in behavior between the 120 m and 80 m altitude flights may be attributable to varying
overlap conditions and off-nadir angles. While the nadir and oblique missions maintained
a consistent image overlap at both altitudes, the image overlap for the POI, spiral, and
loop missions declined at the lower altitude, as these flight paths remained unchanged.
Furthermore, the latter three designs also introduced different off-nadir angles, which
could contribute to this observed discrepancy. The lower stability of the photogrammetric
network during the processing of the nadir and oblique missions data, as suggested by
fewer projections and intersections, could be contributing to their higher susceptibility
to deformations.
The total number of tie points, the distribution of angles of epipolar lines (intersections)
for every tie point, as well as the total number of intersections for each flight design
can provide important insights into the robustness of photogrammetric networks for
different flight designs. The circular POI flight design has a high number of very small
intersection angles, which is generally associated with a weaker photogrammetric network.
The centered viewing angle might also contribute to the stability of the network. The
spiral design uniquely reaches intersection angles greater than 90°, and notably, it is the
only design that reaches the optimal angles of 60° cited by [4]. However, no substantial
improvement is observed for the spiral flight design when compared to the POI or loop
designs, suggesting the intersection angle alone is not the determining factor for network
stability. The distribution of intersection angles and the total number of intersections vary
significantly across different flight designs.

5. Conclusions
Our investigation centered around the application of the DJI Mini 2, a low-cost UAV,
integrated with novel flight designs—“spiral” and “loop”—to enhance the generation of
high-accuracy DSMs. This study revealed promising results in using these strategies to
address pervasive challenges in SfM workflows, particularly the reduction in doming and
bowling effects that traditionally hamper SfM-derived DSMs. The field test conducted near
Jena, Germany, presented clear and substantial results. The novel “spiral” and “loop” flight
designs, in addition to proving practical and efficient, demonstrated an ability to improve
the accuracy of the DSM generation. In terms of DSM accuracy, the images captured by the
DJI Mini 2 using these flight designs yielded DSMs with curvature values below 1 m, while
the curvature values for nadir and oblique flight designs ranged between 1.3 m and 7.9 m.
This shows that cost-effective UAV technology, when paired with intelligent design and
strategy, can produce geospatial data with improved reliability. By using affordable and
easily accessible technology such as the DJI Mini 2 and incorporating efficient flight designs,
we open doors to widespread usage of such methods in various fields. This includes,
but is not limited to, topographic surveying, disaster risk management, environmental
conservation, and more. The ease of use of this technology should enable a very wide
possible user base. This investigation has shed light on the considerable potential for
integrating novel flight designs with low-cost UAVs in geospatial science, particularly in
data generation through SfM workflows.
The novel designs (spiral, loop) show interesting patterns that suggest potential
advantages in photogrammetric network stability, but also highlight the complexity of
these relationships. The intersection angles and their distribution are important factors to
consider when designing flight paths for UAV survey missions, as they can significantly
influence the robustness and accuracy of the resulting photogrammetric network. How-
ever, these results also highlight that the susceptibility to deformations is most likely not
dependent on singular design specifications but on a wider range of external and internal
factors such as image overlap, horizontal and vertical viewing angle, camera characteristics,
as well as land surface features. This makes it very difficult to create a one-size-fits-all
solution for the optimal flight design and is most likely always dependent on the active use
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 24 of 26

case. However, we acknowledge that our research is a single step in a broader exploration.
We anticipate that further advancements and discoveries in UAV technology and flight
strategy will continue to enrich this field, extending the boundaries of what we can achieve
in environmental mapping and monitoring.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.T., M.M.M. and S.D.; methodology, M.M.M., C.T., S.D.
and M.N.; software, M.N., M.M.M. and S.D.; validation, M.M.M., M.N., F.B. and J.Z.; formal analysis,
M.M.M., M.N., S.D. and J.L.; investigation, M.N., M.M.M., S.D, F.B. and J.Z.; resources, M.M.M., S.D,
M.N., C.T. and M.N.; data curation, M.N., M.M.M. and S.D.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.M.M., M.N. and S.D; writing—review and editing, M.M.M., S.D., M.N., C.T., J.L., C.D., J.Z. and
S.H.; visualization, M.M.M. and M.N.; supervision, C.T., S.H. and C.D.; project administration, C.T.
and S.H.; funding acquisition, C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The project underlying this report was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Educa-
tion and Research (German: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) under the funding
code 01BF2115C of the second Citizen Science funding guideline (2021–2024) (German: zweite Förder-
richtlinie Citizen Science (2021–2024)). The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with
the authors.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Jena City Administration for the cooperation
during the drone flight campaigns.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Templin, T.; Popielarczyk, D. The Use of Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Process of Building Models for Cultural
Tourism, 3D Web and Augmented/Mixed Reality Applications. Sensors 2020, 20, 5457. [CrossRef]
2. Heipke, C. (Ed.) Photogrammetrie und Fernerkundung; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [CrossRef]
3. Eltner, A.; Hoffmeister, D.; Kaiser, A.; Karrasch, P.; Klingbeil, L.; Stöcker, C.; Rovere, A. (Eds.) UAVs for the Environmental Sciences:
Methods and Applications; WBG Academic: Darmstadt, Germany, 2022.
4. Sanz-Ablanedo, E.; Chandler, J.H.; Ballesteros-Pérez, P.; Rodríguez-Pérez, J.R. Reducing systematic dome errors in digital
elevation models through better UAV flight design. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2020, 45, 2134–2147. [CrossRef]
5. Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Ju, C.; Son, H.I. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Agriculture: A Review of Perspective of Platform, Control, and
Applications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 105100–105115. [CrossRef]
6. Ju, C.; Son, H. Multiple UAV Systems for Agricultural Applications: Control, Implementation, and Evaluation. Electronics 2018,
7, 162. [CrossRef]
7. Hassan-Esfahani, L.; Ebtehaj, A.M.; Torres-Rua, A.; McKee, M. Spatial Scale Gap Filling Using an Unmanned Aerial System: A
Statistical Downscaling Method for Applications in Precision Agriculture. Sensors 2017, 17, 2106. [CrossRef]
8. Christiansen, M.P.; Laursen, M.S.; Jørgensen, R.N.; Skovsen, S.; Gislum, R. Designing and Testing a UAV Mapping System for
Agricultural Field Surveying. Sensors 2017, 17, 2703. [CrossRef]
9. Wallace, L.O.; Lucieer, A.; Watson, C.S. Assessing the feasibility of uav-based lidar for high resolution forest change detection.
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2012, XXXIX-B7, 499–504. [CrossRef]
10. Schiefer, F.; Kattenborn, T.; Frick, A.; Frey, J.; Schall, P.; Koch, B.; Schmidtlein, S. Mapping forest tree species in high resolution
UAV-based RGB-imagery by means of convolutional neural networks. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 170, 205–215.
[CrossRef]
11. Shin, J.I.; Seo, W.W.; Kim, T.; Park, J.; Woo, C.S. Using UAV Multispectral Images for Classification of Forest Burn Severity—A
Case Study of the 2019 Gangneung Forest Fire. Forests 2019, 10, 1025. [CrossRef]
12. Mohan, M.; Leite, R.V.; Broadbent, E.N.; Wan Mohd Jaafar, W.S.; Srinivasan, S.; Bajaj, S.; Dalla Corte, A.P.; do Amaral, C.H.;
Gopan, G.; Saad, S.N.M.; et al. Individual tree detection using UAV-lidar and UAV-SfM data: A tutorial for beginners. Open
Geosci. 2021, 13, 1028–1039. [CrossRef]
13. Thiel, C.; Mueller, M.M.; Epple, L.; Thau, C.; Hese, S.; Voltersen, M.; Henkel, A. UAS Imagery-Based Mapping of Coarse Wood
Debris in a Natural Deciduous Forest in Central Germany (Hainich National Park). Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3293. [CrossRef]
14. Thiel, C.; Müller, M.M.; Berger, C.; Cremer, F.; Dubois, C.; Hese, S.; Baade, J.; Klan, F.; Pathe, C. Monitoring Selective Logging in a
Pine-Dominated Forest in Central Germany with Repeated Drone Flights Utilizing A Low Cost RTK Quadcopter. Drones 2020,
4, 11. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 25 of 26

15. Xu, Z.; Wu, L.; Shen, Y.; Li, F.; Wang, Q.; Wang, R. Tridimensional Reconstruction Applied to Cultural Heritage with the Use of
Camera-Equipped UAV and Terrestrial Laser Scanner. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 10413–10434. [CrossRef]
16. Nex, F.; Remondino, F. UAV for 3D mapping applications: A review. Appl. Geomat. 2014, 6, 1–15. [CrossRef]
17. Mukhamediev, R.I.; Symagulov, A.; Kuchin, Y.; Zaitseva, E.; Bekbotayeva, A.; Yakunin, K.; Assanov, I.; Levashenko, V.; Popova, Y.;
Akzhalova, A.; et al. Review of Some Applications of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Technology in the Resource-Rich Country. Appl.
Sci. 2021, 11, 10171. [CrossRef]
18. Erdelj, M.; Natalizio, E. UAV-assisted disaster management: Applications and open issues. In Proceedings of the 2016
International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), Piscataway, NJ, USA, 5–8 June 2016; pp. 1–5.
[CrossRef]
19. Harwin, S.; Lucieer, A.; Osborn, J. The Impact of the Calibration Method on the Accuracy of Point Clouds Derived Using
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multi-View Stereopsis. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11933–11953. [CrossRef]
20. Yurtseven, H. Comparison of GNSS-, TLS- and Different Altitude UAV-Generated Datasets on The Basis of Spatial Differences.
ISPRS Int. J.-Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 175. [CrossRef]
21. Eltner, A.; Schneider, D. Analysis of Different Methods for 3D Reconstruction of Natural Surfaces from Parallel-Axes UAV Images.
Photogramm. Rec. 2015, 30, 279–299. [CrossRef]
22. Clark, A.; Moorman, B.; Whalen, D.; Fraser, P. Arctic coastal erosion: UAV-SfM data collection strategies for planimetric and
volumetric measurements. Arct. Sci. 2021, 7, 605–633. [CrossRef]
23. Rosnell, T.; Honkavaara, E. Point cloud generation from aerial image data acquired by a quadrocopter type micro unmanned
aerial vehicle and a digital still camera. Sensors 2012, 12, 453–480. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Nesbit, P.R.; Hubbard, S.M.; Hugenholtz, C.H. Direct Georeferencing UAV-SfM in High-Relief Topography: Accuracy Assessment
and Alternative Ground Control Strategies along Steep Inaccessible Rock Slopes. Remote Sens. 2023, 14, 490. [CrossRef]
25. James, M.R.; Robson, S.; d’Oleire Oltmanns, S.; Niethammer, U. Optimising UAV topographic surveys processed with structure-
from-motion: Ground control quality, quantity and bundle adjustment. Geomorphology 2017, 280, 51–66. [CrossRef]
26. Westoby, M.J.; Brasington, J.; Glasser, N.F.; Hambrey, M.J.; Reynolds, J.M. ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost,
effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 2012, 179, 300–314. [CrossRef]
27. Hartley, R.; Zisserman, A. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
28. Lowe, D.G. Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2004, 60, 91–110. [CrossRef]
29. Zhuo, X.; Koch, T.; Kurz, F.; Fraundorfer, F.; Reinartz, P. Automatic UAV Image Geo-Registration by Matching UAV Images to
Georeferenced Image Data. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 376. [CrossRef]
30. Smith, M.W.; Carrivick, J.L.; Quincey, D.J. Structure from motion photogrammetry in physical geography. Prog. Phys. Geogr.
Earth Environ. 2016, 40, 247–275. [CrossRef]
31. Deliry, S.I.; Avdan, U. Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Systems Photogrammetry and Structure from Motion in Surveying and
Mapping: A Review. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2021, 49, 1997–2017. [CrossRef]
32. Javernick, L.; Brasington, J.; Caruso, B. Modeling the topography of shallow braided rivers using Structure-from-Motion
photogrammetry. Geomorphology 2014, 213, 166–182. [CrossRef]
33. Triggs, B.; McLauchlan, P.F.; Hartley, R.I.; Fitzgibbon, A.W. Bundle Adjustment—A Modern Synthesis. In Vision Algorithms:
Theory and Practice; Triggs, B., Zisserman, A., Szeliski, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 298–372.
34. Carrivick, J.L.; Smith, M.W.; Quincey, D.J. Structure from Motion in the Geosciences; New Analytic Methods in Earth and
Environmental Science; Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2016.
35. Eltner, A.; Kaiser, A.; Castillo, C.; Rock, G.; Neugirg, F.; Abellán, A. Image-based surface reconstruction in geomorphometry—Merits,
limits and developments. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2016, 4, 359–389. [CrossRef]
36. Sanz-Ablanedo, E.; Chandler, J.; Rodríguez-Pérez, J.; Ordóñez, C. Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and SfM
Photogrammetry Survey as a Function of the Number and Location of Ground Control Points Used. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1606.
[CrossRef]
37. James, M.R.; Robson, S. Mitigating systematic error in topographic models derived from UAV and ground-based image networks.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2014, 39, 1413–1420. [CrossRef]
38. Magri, L.; Toldo, R. Bending the doming effect in structure from motion reconstructions through bundle adjustment. Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, XLII-2/W6, 235–241. [CrossRef]
39. Hastedt, H.; Luhmann, T.; Przybilla, H.J.; Rofallski, R. Evaluation of interior orientation modelling for cameras with aspheric
lenses and image pre-processing with special emphasis to sfm reconstruction. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci.
2021, XLIII-B2, 17–24. [CrossRef]
40. Samboko, H.T.; Schurer, S.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Makurira, H.; Banda, K.; Winsemius, H. Evaluating low-cost topographic surveys
for computations of conveyance. Geosci. Instrum. Methods Data Syst. 2022, 11, 1–23. 2022. [CrossRef]
41. Griffiths, D.; Burningham, H. Comparison of pre- and self-calibrated camera calibration models for UAS-derived nadir imagery
for a SfM application. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2019, 43, 215–235. [CrossRef]
42. Carbonneau, P.E.; Dietrich, J.T. Cost-effective non-metric photogrammetry from consumer-grade sUAS: Implications for direct
georeferencing of structure from motion photogrammetry. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2017, 42, 473–486. [CrossRef]
43. Kaiser, S.; Boike, J.; Grosse, G.; Langer, M. The Potential of UAV Imagery for the Detection of Rapid Permafrost Degradation:
Assessing the Impacts on Critical Arctic Infrastructure. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 6107. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4308 26 of 26

44. Wackrow, R.; Chandler, J.H. A convergent image configuration for DEM extraction that minimises the systematic effects caused
by an inaccurate lens model. Photogramm. Rec. 2008, 23, 6–18. [CrossRef]
45. Roncella, R.; Forlani, G. UAV Block Geometry Design and Camera Calibration: A Simulation Study. Sensors 2021, 21, 6090.
[CrossRef]
46. Vacca, G.; Dessì, A.; Sacco, A. The Use of Nadir and Oblique UAV Images for Building Knowledge. ISPRS Int. J.-Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 393.
[CrossRef]
47. Nesbit, P.R.; Hugenholtz, C.H. Enhancing UAV–SfM 3D Model Accuracy in High-Relief Landscapes by Incorporating Oblique
Images. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 239. [CrossRef]
48. Zapico, I.; Molina, A.; Laronne, J.B.; Sánchez Castillo, L.; Martín Duque, J.F. Stabilization by geomorphic reclamation of a
rotational landslide in an abandoned mine next to the Alto Tajo Natural Park. Eng. Geol. 2020, 264, 105321. [CrossRef]
49. Štroner, M.; Urban, R.; Seidl, J.; Reindl, T.; Brouček, J. Photogrammetry Using UAV-Mounted GNSS RTK: Georeferencing
Strategies without GCPs. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1336. [CrossRef]
50. Stumpf, A.; Malet, J.P.; Allemand, P.; Pierrot-Deseilligny, M.; Skupinski, G. Ground-based multi-view photogrammetry for the
monitoring of landslide deformation and erosion. Geomorphology 2015, 231, 130–145. [CrossRef]
51. Bemis, S.P.; Micklethwaite, S.; Turner, D.; James, M.R.; Akciz, S.; Thiele, S.T.; Bangash, H.A. Ground-based and UAV-Based
photogrammetry: A multi-scale, high-resolution mapping tool for structural geology and paleoseismology. J. Struct. Geol. 2014,
69, 163–178. [CrossRef]
52. Carvajal-Ramírez, F.; Agüera-Vega, F.; Martínez-Carricondo, P.J. Effects of image orientation and ground control points dis-
tribution on unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry projects on a road cut slope. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2016, 10, 034004.
[CrossRef]
53. TLUBN. Antares. Kartendienst des TLUBN, 2022. Available online: https://antares.thueringen.de/cadenza/;jsessionid=71996B7
07F06A05525B9B42337F8A6A1 (accessed on 15 July 2023)
54. CLMS. Copernicus GMES Initial Operations/Copernicus Land Monitoring Services—Validation of Products (CORINE Land
Cover Map 2018), 2021. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018 (accessed on
15 July 2023)
55. Gaveau, D.L.; Hill, R.A. Quantifying canopy height underestimation by laser pulse penetration in small-footprint airborne laser
scanning data. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29, 650–657. [CrossRef]
56. Hopkinson, C.; Chasmer, L.E.; Sass, G.; Creed, I.F.; Sitar, M.; Kalbfleisch, W.; Treitz, P. Vegetation class dependent errors in lidar
ground elevation and canopy height estimates in a boreal wetland environment. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 31, 191–206. [CrossRef]
57. Litchi. 2023. Available online: https://flylitchi.com/ (accessed on 15 July 2023).
58. DJI. DJI Mini 2 User Manual v1.4; 2022. Available online: https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/DJI_Mini_2/20210630/DJI_Mini_2_
User_Manual-EN.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2023)
59. PPM. ppm 10xx GNSS Sensor, 2023. Available online: https://ppmgmbh.com/gps-produkte/externer-ppm-10xx-gnss-sensor/
(accessed on 15 July 2023)
60. Novatel. VEXXIS® GNSS-500 Series Antennas, 2023. Available online: https://novatel.com/products/gps-gnss-antennas/
vexxis-series-antennas/vexxis-gnss-500-series-antennas (accessed on 15 July 2023)
61. Baboo, S.S.; Devi, M.R. An analysis of different resampling methods in Coimbatore, District. Glob. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 2010,
5, 9611.
62. Fritz, O.; Marx, S.; Herfort, B.; Kaiser, S.; Langer, M.; Lenz, J.; Thiel, C.; Zipf, A. Das Potenzial von Citizen Science für die
Kartierung von Landschaftsveränderungen in arktischen Perma-frostregionen. AGIT—J. Fur Angew. Geoinformatik 2022, 8, 30–40.
[CrossRef]
63. Mueller, M.M.; Thiel, C.; Kaiser, S.; Lenz, J.and Langer, M.; Lantuit, H.; Marx, S.; Fritz, O.; .; Zipf, A. UndercoverEisAgenten—Monitoring
Permafrost Thaw in the Arctic using Local Knowledge and UAVs. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria,
24–28 April 2023; EGU23-2698. [CrossRef]
64. Goetz, J.; Brenning, A.; Marcer, M.; Bodin, X. Modeling the precision of structure-from-motion multi-view stereo digital elevation
models from repeated close-range aerial surveys. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 210, 208–216. [CrossRef]
65. Rogers, S.R.; Manning, I.; Livingstone, W. Comparing the spatial accuracy of digital surface models from four unoccupied aerial
systems: Photogrammetry versus LiDAR. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2806. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.